Total Face Approach (TFA) 3D Cephalometry and Superimposition in Orthognathic Surgery: Evaluation of the Vertical Dimensions in a Consecutive Series.
orthognathic surgery
superimposition
total face approach
Journal
Methods and protocols
ISSN: 2409-9279
Titre abrégé: Methods Protoc
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101720073
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 May 2021
18 May 2021
Historique:
received:
30
03
2021
revised:
13
05
2021
accepted:
14
05
2021
entrez:
2
6
2021
pubmed:
3
6
2021
medline:
3
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Cephalometry is fundamental in diagnosis, analysis, and planning of orthodontic-surgical treatment as it reveals skeletal relationship between the upper and lower jaw as well as facial aesthetic parameters. Nevertheless, 3D cephalometry has still not become the exam of choice in orthognathic treatment even though today CBCT (Cone Beam Computed Tomography) is routinely used in other branches of dentistry. In a sample of 13 patients undergoing bimaxillary orthognathic surgery a chin-vertex CBCT exam was prescribed prior to orthodontic treatment (OT) and 12 months after surgery (T1). The DICOM files uploaded to MaterialiseSimplant Ortho software pro 2.1 (Materialise Co., Leuven, Belgium) were analyzed following the multiplane 3D Total Face cephalometry protocol (TFA). Results comparing pre-op and post-op TFA 3D cephalometry, were then evaluated considering reference values reported in literature. The CBCT, carried out pre- and post-surgery, were subsequently analyzed employing the superimposition method using cranial base as reference. The aim of this study is to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the two methods in orthognathic surgery. Multiplane 3D TFA allows the clinician to locate where major or minor skeletal discrepancies are found with respect to ideal parameters and is also useful in classifying skeletal intermaxillary relation. The superimposition method is highly intuitive but does not provide information on the quantity and location of osteotomic movement.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Cephalometry is fundamental in diagnosis, analysis, and planning of orthodontic-surgical treatment as it reveals skeletal relationship between the upper and lower jaw as well as facial aesthetic parameters. Nevertheless, 3D cephalometry has still not become the exam of choice in orthognathic treatment even though today CBCT (Cone Beam Computed Tomography) is routinely used in other branches of dentistry.
METHODS
METHODS
In a sample of 13 patients undergoing bimaxillary orthognathic surgery a chin-vertex CBCT exam was prescribed prior to orthodontic treatment (OT) and 12 months after surgery (T1). The DICOM files uploaded to MaterialiseSimplant Ortho software pro 2.1 (Materialise Co., Leuven, Belgium) were analyzed following the multiplane 3D Total Face cephalometry protocol (TFA).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Results comparing pre-op and post-op TFA 3D cephalometry, were then evaluated considering reference values reported in literature. The CBCT, carried out pre- and post-surgery, were subsequently analyzed employing the superimposition method using cranial base as reference. The aim of this study is to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the two methods in orthognathic surgery.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Multiplane 3D TFA allows the clinician to locate where major or minor skeletal discrepancies are found with respect to ideal parameters and is also useful in classifying skeletal intermaxillary relation. The superimposition method is highly intuitive but does not provide information on the quantity and location of osteotomic movement.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34069808
pii: mps4020036
doi: 10.3390/mps4020036
pmc: PMC8162563
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
J Craniofac Surg. 2006 Mar;17(2):314-25
pubmed: 16633181
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011 Mar;69(3):606-22
pubmed: 21257250
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Sep;130(3):300-9
pubmed: 16979487
Angle Orthod. 1997;67(5):327-36
pubmed: 9347106
Semin Orthod. 2011 Mar 1;17(1):72-80
pubmed: 21516170
J Craniofac Surg. 2005 Jan;16(1):100-4
pubmed: 15699653
Methods Protoc. 2021 Feb 20;4(1):
pubmed: 33672499
Prog Orthod. 2010;11(1):2-12
pubmed: 20529623
Angle Orthod. 1995;65(4):243
pubmed: 7486236
Angle Orthod. 2007 Nov;77(6):1019-24
pubmed: 18004907
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Sep;138(3):361-71
pubmed: 20816308
Dental Press J Orthod. 2010 Jan;15(1):45e1-45e12
pubmed: 21738889
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Jan;131(1):44-50
pubmed: 17208105
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011 Apr;40(4):341-52
pubmed: 21095103